AU wrote:
Actually, in South Africa politicians did spin this as black and white issue in order to score political points and criminalise whites.
Oh yes there's no doubt in my mind blacks had that card to play. Had it been a white woman they wouldn't care about the outcome.
She shouldn't have been allowed to compete in the first place. The reason she slipped through at first is she wasn't winning every single race. And yes she's been treated like crap. a lot. but that's no reason to not do the fair thing in the end.
Belarussiya wrote:
It was already known of her condition for many years and she was still allowed to compete. Why the sudden change in tone the past 2 years now? She was abused and treated unfairly and in an extremely dehumanizing way. Her ban is absolutely disgusting to me.
wejo wrote:
The people who attack Caster personally should be ashamed.
I can say that and still say I think this is the right decision.
I disagree with this to an extent
People attacking Caster because of her condition should maybe be ashamed. But every time I read something that she has said in the press somewhere she sounds like a brat so personally I really dislike her. Nothing to do with her gender
koinion wrote:
I hate talking about these issues but they are important and need to be addressed.
I hate talking about them because I do believe that trans and intersex women ARE women. But they are women with an advantage in sports that is (in my opinion) unfair. Now I want to be clear. I hate that I think this. I have tried very hard to unthink this. I have read arguments from trans activists and athletes. But I've never been truly convinced.
Gender is a social construct. But so are sports. Women, or Cis Women at least, when they fought for the right to play, they didn't fight for the right to play WITH men, and that was for a reason. It's one of the only 'separate but equal' civil rights movements I can think of.
Now taking trans and intersex athletes out of the equation for a second, I don't know what makes cis men better athletes than cis women. Testosterone? Bone density? Lung capacity? All of the above and more? It's clear that there's not an answer for that right now. But pull up any XC or track meet. Any one you want. middle school. high school. college, professional--you'll see the same thing. Males far exceed the females in performance every single time.
As a cis woman, I was a decent competitive runner. There is an argument that because I was faster than some males than there's no true competitive edge. But I had accomplishments. All State and whatnot. Line me up against an All State boy, well....the race is won probably in the first 200 meters.
The thing that this ultimately comes down to for me is that while I do believe that trans and intersex women have an unfair advantage over their counterparts, there is no solution that I think is humane, just or fair. Caster taking drugs she does not need or want to take? Like...seriously who would do that??? And I don't think it's fair to say 'wellll she can compete with the men' or 'wellll she can run the 200'. She ran the 800 already, she's competed in it for years. She's not going to change her whole life around without a dang fight.
I also despise the idea of excluding trans and intersex women from sports. Sports is a social construct that is supposed to celebrate hunanity, not exclude or dehumanize people.
Ultimately, I hope I am one day convinced that trans and intersex women do not have an unfair advantage. That would be mighty convenient for me.
The scientific evidence suggests that trans and intersex women only have an unfair advantage if they don't reduce their testosterone production. The data set on trans-women times in races shows that after a year of hormone therapy, their sex/age-graded times as women are equivalent to their times when they raced identifying as a man, pre-therapy. That's just the facts. So there is no need to feel guilty. Those trans/intersex-women who choose not to undertake hormone therapy, do not get the right to compete in women-only sports. **Those that do undergo hormone therapy should be allowed to compete, the IAAF has reached the sensible middle ground here based on scientific evidence.** To be fair the data on advantage is from road races, 5km - marathon, so it's unclear if trans/intersex-women sprinters maintain a portion of their advantage after therapy. This is why Semenya would be allowed to compete if she underwent hormone therapy. She tried it for a few months and in that short time she slowed down to 2:02.6 [a massive 8.4-second decrease in performance, and it wasn't even after the full-year required to fully mitigate the advantage]. Semenya is indeed evidence that trans-women.
**Note transwomen post-therapy get as slow as they would be relative to their male performances if they were born as a woman. That does not mean they don't have advatanges over CiS women. It means the declines in performance due to the effects of hormone therapy cancel out the advantages. Some of the advantages may be maitained, but the disadvantages must cancel those advantages.
lt man wrote:
SalmonRice wrote:
This is a fantastic decision and a win for fair women's sport. I'm glad the clown show is finally over. Melissa Bishop was robbed of Olympic Gold and many other fantastic athletes also lost out on global medals because of three "women" with internal testicles. I hope our sport returns to some normalcy now.
IAAF should reissue medals to those women robbed by men.
Should the IAAF just eliminate gender categories? This would be fair to everyone, Semenya included, if we were to be honest about things. Then we would just have to accept that some people are faster than others without hiding behind the barrier of some protected sub category. Competitions could have several heats based on performance instead.
rosewc wrote:
She (and I use that pronoun because it is the one she prefers) was told she was a girl from birth, by her parents, teachers, and coaches. She did not choose to be a girl any more than she chose her chromosomes. Imagine being in her shoes, for her life.
A+ for confidence, Zero for research and accuracy.
You are basing that statement on hearsay. School photos of Caster dressed as a boy doesn't back up the popular view.
Had Caster not won girls 800m races, 'she' would probably still be dressed as a boy.....oh, wait, hang on a second, forget that, 'she' is.
wejo wrote:
The people who attack Caster personally should be ashamed.
I can say that and still say I think this is the right decision.
Maybe don't gleefully start a thread every single time there's news that's negative for Caster. Hmmm?
[quote]Typical American wrote:
Good.
When can Melissa Bishop pick up her Gold from Rio?
Exactly! Top 3 in the last 'women's' Olympic 800m were XY males! It's an absolute disgrace that Bishop was robbed and it hasn't been rectified yet.
oops potato wrote:
wejo wrote:
The people who attack Caster personally should be ashamed.
I can say that and still say I think this is the right decision.
Maybe don't gleefully start a thread every single time there's news that's negative for Caster. Hmmm?
Ridiculous - he's not being gleeful, just reporting the news. He runs a running website afterall. Given the massive impact XY men have had on XX women's sport, and middle-distance running in particular, it is only correct that he does so. This decision has had a huge impact on the future of women's sport. Finally some sanity.
For those who [use a very tiresome overly-simple argument to] compare a genetically talented person (eg. Bolt or Farah) as having an 'unfair' advantage like Semenya/Wambui et al, it isn't the same thing: Usain Bolt and Mo Farah don't compete against horses, because they [ie. the horses] - as a category - have a massive in-built advantage over human males. Though there are a few horses these human males may be able to beat in their respective distances. It is the same with women vs men - biologically, women are overwhelmingly slower and weaker. Therefore, they have their own category. There will be individual advantages, and genetic and environmental factors that make some within the categories slower/faster. However, put an average horse with basic training in a 5,000m field with Mo Farah et al, and I guarantee you - every time - the horse will win. Same with an (extremely) average XY male [like Semenya!] vs females.
Categories exist for a reason.
wejo wrote:
I think it’s a good day for female sport but some disagree .
Tough day for Semenya for sure
https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1303419558351470597?s=21
Are you saying the next Olympic champion in the women's 800m is going to be a woman?
I am Sam wrote:
rosewc wrote:
She (and I use that pronoun because it is the one she prefers) was told she was a girl from birth, by her parents, teachers, and coaches. She did not choose to be a girl any more than she chose her chromosomes. Imagine being in her shoes, for her life.
A+ for confidence, Zero for research and accuracy.
You are basing that statement on hearsay. School photos of Caster dressed as a boy doesn't back up the popular view.
Had Caster not won girls 800m races, 'she' would probably still be dressed as a boy.....oh, wait, hang on a second, forget that, 'she' is.
proof?
I can only find photos of her dressed as a girl
I feel bad for Caster. But this was the right decision. She can live her life however she wants. But competing against genetic females without some sort of hormone leveler absolutely gave her an unfair advantage, Track got it right.
new catogory needed? wrote:
lt man wrote:
IAAF should reissue medals to those women robbed by men.
Should the IAAF just eliminate gender categories? This would be fair to everyone, Semenya included, if we were to be honest about things. Then we would just have to accept that some people are faster than others without hiding behind the barrier of some protected sub category. Competitions could have several heats based on performance instead.
Slippery slope. But point well made. If we just got rid of gender as a sub-category in sport, not only would you see virtually zero professional female athletes in high level sports, but the resulting consequence would be females would be less inclined to play sports in general and in a couple of generations women in sport would be a thing of the past.
Having sport separated by gender is absolutely necessary. Thus, making sure the right people participate under the right gender is necessary.
CircusClown wrote:
I feel bad for Caster. But this was the right decision. She can live her life however she wants. But competing against genetic females without some sort of hormone leveler absolutely gave her an unfair advantage, Track got it right.
^This.
And I feel worse for the XX women who lost medals, fame and income because of her.
AU wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That isn't being PC. It was never a black and white issue but involved competing principles. It is also certainly tough for the competitor most directly affected.
Actually, in South Africa politicians did spin this as black and white issue in order to score political points and criminalise whites.
Politocs doesn't make it a black and white - or simple - issue.
Belarussiya wrote:
AU wrote:
Actually, in South Africa politicians did spin this as black and white issue in order to score political points and criminalise whites.
Oh yes there's no doubt in my mind blacks had that card to play. Had it been a white woman they wouldn't care about the outcome.
So no white sports competitors represent South Africa? Since none of them appear to be DSD it's an easy claim for you to make.
new catogory needed? wrote:
lt man wrote:
IAAF should reissue medals to those women robbed by men.
Should the IAAF just eliminate gender categories? This would be fair to everyone, Semenya included, if we were to be honest about things. Then we would just have to accept that some people are faster than others without hiding behind the barrier of some protected sub category. Competitions could have several heats based on performance instead.
Well, why don't we just remove age categories as well. Seems fair. Oh, wait ...
oops potato wrote:
wejo wrote:
The people who attack Caster personally should be ashamed.
I can say that and still say I think this is the right decision.
Maybe don't gleefully start a thread every single time there's news that's negative for Caster. Hmmm?
So the finding of the Swiss Appeal Court should just be ignored here? Not enough of a landmark decision for you?
Armstronglivs wrote:
oops potato wrote:
Maybe don't gleefully start a thread every single time there's news that's negative for Caster. Hmmm?
So the finding of the Swiss Appeal Court should just be ignored here? Not enough of a landmark decision for you?
one thread for all Caster related news. simple
usagedenied wrote:
Shouldn't feel conflicted.
And that was well said. It is fairness v. inclusivity.
But where the parameters of the activity clearly outline boundaries of inclusivity it's an easy moral judgement!
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am someone who believes in equality, equity and inclusion. So it bothers me on a moral level that I'm not convinced that trans and intersex women don't have an unfair advantage in sport.
It isn't surprising you feel conflicted. There are two opposing principles involved: inclusivity - which favours transgender participation - and fairness - which says they have biological advantages that cis women like yourself cannot compete with.
One of those principles must be relegated in any decision either way. Both principles have a moral component - or there could be no justification for either.
The evidence shows that the biological advantages transgender/intersex women have over cis women are undeniable. The question then is what becomes of women's sport if they are permitted to compete with cis women? The best solution so far is the one arrived at by the sports ruling bodies. But it comes at a price to transgender/intersex athletes.
[/quote]
I didnt say in the small box above what you attributed to me. That was another commenter.